The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

Not really, no, it doesnt seem reasonable rt. Im afraid your theory just isnt far enough "out there" to satisfy this reader. Not based on whats gone down over the past near on 4yrs. No Siree Bob. If Jamison does indeed take his leave, financing falls through, Goldwater Challenges stalling a closing, whatever, goodness only knows what might follow. Maybe Kaites along with Jerry & Michael Reinsdorf re-enter the picture; someone from out of the blue; absolutely no idea, but we left normal so long ago Id almost be shocked at this stage in the game if developments started following a logical path.

Interesting article on public funding and tax breaks for stadiums from Patrick Hruby at Sports on Earth. Basically sports stadium construction has no impact on the economy of a local area, and can actually decrease the average incomes in your town. Buyer beware. Most, if not all, public investment in stadiums in recent years has been a disaster.

I'm sure we could commission TL Hocking to refute the claims made in this article, right Glendale?

Interesting article on public funding and tax breaks for stadiums from Patrick Hruby at Sports on Earth. Basically sports stadium construction has no impact on the economy of a local area, and can actually decrease the average incomes in your town. Buyer beware. Most, if not all, public investment in stadiums in recent years has been a disaster.

I'm sure we could commission TL Hocking to refute the claims made in this article, right Glendale?

So then by your own argument, Edmonton and Quebec city are about to waste millions on building new arenas.

Interesting article on public funding and tax breaks for stadiums from Patrick Hruby at Sports on Earth. Basically sports stadium construction has no impact on the economy of a local area, and can actually decrease the average incomes in your town. Buyer beware. Most, if not all, public investment in stadiums in recent years has been a disaster.

I'm sure we could commission TL Hocking to refute the claims made in this article, right Glendale?

Lake Forest College economics professor Rob Baade has been saying this since 1987. The book Soccernomics has an entire chapter devoted to publicly funded stadiums and major sports events (Olympics, World Cup, Super Bowl). They don't bring in the money that they were predicted to. Now, the book does say the stadiums/events do make the locals feel better about their city and take more pride in it. So there are benefits to stadiums and major events. But they rarely bring in true economic benefit. As I said in earlier post, when there is real profit to be made, private investment will want to find it and and keep it for themselves.

So then by your own argument, Edmonton and Quebec city are about to waste millions on building new arenas.

Or does it compute differently up north???

Acutaly, in Quebec City, the lease that has been sign between the City and QMI (which is already sign, by the way), is kind of 2 possibilities lease. One part is a lease "if there is no LNH team" and other amounts "if there is a LNH team". So the building of the amphitheatre is not relying on the fact that there must be a LNH team. And second, in Quebec City it is QMI who pay the city to manage the building and not the city who will pay them

Interesting article on public funding and tax breaks for stadiums from Patrick Hruby at Sports on Earth. Basically sports stadium construction has no impact on the economy of a local area, and can actually decrease the average incomes in your town. Buyer beware. Most, if not all, public investment in stadiums in recent years has been a disaster.

I'm sure we could commission TL Hocking to refute the claims made in this article, right Glendale?

(YAWN)

We have this argument at least once on each Coyotes thread. Cities want teams for quality of life and to validate their status as a big league city. Cinci had a clear choice when they built the stadium cited in the article: Build it or the team moves to Cleveland and becomes the Cleveland Browns. That would have been an emotional blow to the city. No one is saying that Proctor and Gamble would have left with them but still.

Both Edmonton and Quebec are replacing older arenas, and they lack competing arenas of that size in their region.

A more apt example would be the tanking Markham arena plan where there is already a competing arena in the area. It would seem now that Markham council has no interest in becoming Glendale North...

But if I understood the point of the article CGG linked, there are no benefits from a city or municipality building any sports facilities period. Doesn't matter if it's replacing one. By his argument those old arenas weren't beneficial either when they were built..

I'm not against Edmonton or QC building arenas. But there have been way too many times general themed arguments being used against Glendale end up being somewhat hypocritical.

But if I understood the point of the article CGG linked, there are no benefits from a city or municipality building any sports facilities period. Doesn't matter if it's replacing one. By his argument those old arenas weren't beneficial either when they were built..

I'm not against Edmonton or QC building arenas. But there have been way too many times general themed arguments being used against Glendale end up being somewhat hypocritical.

Legend,

In one sense you are right. But, in another, not so much.

Most arguments here against Glendale are not against the Arena being built in the first place. (I think most posters here understand that the Arena is not an economic benefit. It does allow the team a place to play, and is also a special events venue - so that there is 'entertainment' available in the city, however. And, that applies in every place - Minn/St Paul; QC; San Jose; Glendale....)

The arguments here against Glendale are that once the Arena has been built, now the city is giving money to the team for no other reason than that the team will leave if they don't. That makes Glendale's situation far different from QC, for example, where PKP is paying for the privilege of managing the Arena.

I'm not against Edmonton or QC building arenas. But there have been way too many times general themed arguments being used against Glendale end up being somewhat hypocritical.

I haven't seen those arguments, but Glendale is a lot different than Edmonton or Quebec City. Edmonton and Quebec City are both big enough for a modern, large arena to host concerts, circuses, sporting events, etc. Even if it will ultimately cost more money to build than it will ever generate. The arena will keep/attract a team in a sport that is sure to be popular in the area. Cities have even built large, modern arenas even when there wasn't going to be major tenant. Ford Center in Oklahoma City (it did eventually attract the Thunder), BOK Center in Tulsa, Sprint Center in Kansas City, MTS Centre in Winnipeg, New Orleans Arena in New Orleans, Pepsi Arena in Albany, Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena in Jacksonville, Fla, etc are all examples of cities that didn't have a large, modern arena nor did they have a major tenant to play at the arena, but they build the arena anyway.

But Phoenix already had a large, modern arena and it really isn't large enough to need a second. So building it to attract concerts and circuses that may have by-passed the city doesn't make a lot of sense. They were already playing at US Airways Arena.

We have this argument at least once on each Coyotes thread. Cities want teams for quality of life and to validate their status as a big league city. Cinci had a clear choice when they built the stadium cited in the article: Build it or the team moves to Cleveland and becomes the Cleveland Browns. That would have been an emotional blow to the city. No one is saying that Proctor and Gamble would have left with them but still.

I live in Baltimore and we dont' have a NHL team or an NBA team and I hardly think it matters to the quality of life. And I have been to Cincinnati on business several times and really them having pro teams means nothing to me as there is still nothing much to the city. We didn't even have a NFL team for a long time. I think baseball is the only sport that really adds much to a city as there are so many games. You get a flow of people going in and out of the games if it is located in the right place.

I'm not against Edmonton or QC building arenas. But there have been way too many times general themed arguments being used against Glendale end up being somewhat hypocritical.

No matter how little we seem to have in common on almost any other issue regarding the Coyotes, I agree with you in that one -- Hruby's point applies to Quebec City as well, as the new QC arena involves a public (province and city) subsidy to a private company (Quebecor).

However, this thread is obviously going to see yet another diversion about Quebec City so I might as well set the record straight:

- Glendale (who paid for 100% of the arena) will forever be on the hook with 100% of the cost of financing the arena, and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever breaking even on arena operations either.
- Quebec City (who pays for ~40% of the arena) will assuredly recuperate about 50% of its financing cost (with a reasonable shot at breaking even if there's an NHL team). It will NEVER be on the hook for operating expenses.
- The Quebec province (who pays for 50% of the arena), however, will never see its money back unless you can come up with some wacky computations about indirect benefits (hint: you won't).
- Public support in Quebec City was overwhelmingly in favor of spending money for the new arena.

No matter how little we seem to have in common on almost any other issue regarding the Coyotes, I agree with you in that one -- Hruby's point applies to Quebec City as well, as the new QC arena involves a public (province and city) subsidy to a private company (Quebecor).

However, this thread is obviously going to see yet another diversion about Quebec City so I might as well set the record straight:

- Glendale (who paid for 100% of the arena) will forever be on the hook with 100% of the cost of financing the arena, and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever breaking even on arena operations either.
- Quebec City (who pays for ~40% of the arena) will assuredly recuperate about 50% of its financing cost (with a reasonable shot at breaking even if there's an NHL team). It will NEVER be on the hook for operating expenses.
- The Quebec province (who pays for 50% of the arena), however, will never see its money back unless you can come up with some wacky computations about indirect benefits (hint: you won't).
- Public support in Quebec City was overwhelmingly in favor of spending money for the new arena.

eh I am not sure the province won't recoup its investment since it gets a provincial sales tax as well as income tax on players salaries. I don't know what that is for Quebec.

I live in Baltimore and we dont' have a NHL team or an NBA team and I hardly think it matters to the quality of life. And I have been to Cincinnati on business several times and really them having pro teams means nothing to me as there is still nothing much to the city. We didn't even have a NFL team for a long time. I think baseball is the only sport that really adds much to a city as there are so many games. You get a flow of people going in and out of the games if it is located in the right place.

Baltimore actually had a chance to the Wizards and Capitals but decided to go for the Browns/Ravens instead. Abe Polian offered to move his two teams there if they would use the money earmarked for a football stadium for an arena. They chose to go for the NFL team. They sure seemed pretty anxious to get an NFL team based on everything I have seen and heard from Baltimorians who tried to justify the move of the Browns. Heck ESPN did a whole documentary about the Colts band that kept playing for years after the team left.

As for your view on cinci thats fine thats your view. I'm just saying for the people who live there not having the football team would make that city a less desirable place to be. Maybe it makes a difference for someone who is contemplating a job there vs another city.

eh I am not sure the province won't recoup its investment since it gets a provincial sales tax as well as income tax on players salaries. I don't know what that is for Quebec.

Here don't have city taxes. There is tho a planned special tax of roughly $2,50 that should be applied to every ticket bought for any type of event to be held in the new arena. Those $2,50 will go straight to the city.

Other than that, there is the federal sales tax at 5% and provincial at 9 or 9,5% and incoming another raise January 1st.

I will agree the city and the province won't see $$$ benefits (except tourism ?) by building the arena, be it Glendale, Quebec, Seattle or Yellowknife. As other pointed out, A MAJOR difference between Glendale and as far as I know every other arena currently occupied by an NHL team but owned by city is the fact that Glendale pays to have the NHL use the equipment while everywhere else it's the NHL(team) that pays to do.

And I'm pretty sure that even when Coyotes played downtown Phoenix they were paying to use the arena.

Acutaly, in Quebec City, the lease that has been sign between the City and QMI (which is already sign, by the way), is kind of 2 possibilities lease. One part is a lease "if there is no LNH team" and other amounts "if there is a LNH team". So the building of the amphitheatre is not relying on the fact that there must be a LNH team. And second, in Quebec City it is QMI who pay the city to manage the building and not the city who will pay them

His posts are usually poorly disguised digs at a fan base and area of the world that he does not understand nor does he take the time to understand. It was meant to blow off some steam as a person who wants relocation and to rip on a fan base that is reeling from the past 3+ years.

What you point out in your post is exactly how I see the very few 'hostile' Jets fans that tend to ruin it for the logical level headed Jets fans that make up most of their followers.

Everyone knows what the poster suggested is not even close to accurate or a well thought out good idea not warranting a response, you were kind enough to say what was probably on a majority of our minds when reading his post and put it out there.

Thank you again for posting this.

Glendale hockey fans and AZ hockey fans know the difference between an NHL and AHL team. To suggest otherwise shows just how clueless some people are about Coyotes fans in general.

While I wasn't suggesting EVERY fan wouldn't know the difference, most won't to them hockey is hockey. AHL hockey isn't all that bad IMO. FWIW the "fan base" obviously isn't strong enough to ensure the team stays afloat. Why haven't they opened up their pocket books?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcwpg

Truth be told, Winnipeg never got an AHL team thinking it was a tool or a stepping stone to get back in the NHL. They got the Moose to fill 42 dates at the MTS Centre with something. Having an AHL team means nothing to the NHL as to the viability of NHL hockey in any market.

If the Coyotes were to leave, and someone was enticed to put an AHL team in Glendale, it would be done as a business decision to at least fill those dates with something. It would have nothing to do with growing the game or getting the NHL back. AHL hockey is just so different then NHL hockey as far as the demographic that goes to the games and the money involved.

Exactly, part of my point was to otherwise fill the arena with an anchor tenant. Who's to say it needs to be an NHL team that they can't afford?

Last edited by Killion: 12-12-2012 at 10:10 PM.
Reason: easy there Big Fella...

Appreciate all the replies... and without trying to turn this further into a QC arena debate, I agree you cannot compare it with Glendale. Or any other arena for that matter. Wasn't my intent.

But understand that while Glendale is now having to finance the arena's operation (so to speak) it wasn't laid out that way in the beginning. Glendale received rent, sales taxes and the surchages tacked onto tickets sold for all events to the arena. And many people called that a bad lease.

Appreciate all the replies... and without trying to turn this further into a QC arena debate, I agree you cannot compare it with Glendale. Or any other arena for that matter. Wasn't my intent.

But understand that while Glendale is now having to finance the arena's operation (so to speak) it wasn't laid out that way in the beginning. Glendale received rent, sales taxes and the surchages tacked onto tickets sold for all events to the arena. And many people called that a bad lease.

As always, I appreciate your logic! Sorry but when something is said about QC it become emotional... Not for me, but many seems to feel attaked, but sure I would like the fans of Glendale keep their team, as I said before many time, because we lost Nordiques and I know their feeling. But never I would try something to stole the Yotes. I just try to analyse the economical and political situation in Glendale NOW and what happend in QC in 1995 and now. Nothing to get blasted I thinK? But, it's part of it people always get emotionals lol

Here don't have city taxes. There is tho a planned special tax of roughly $2,50 that should be applied to every ticket bought for any type of event to be held in the new arena. Those $2,50 will go straight to the city.

Other than that, there is the federal sales tax at 5% and provincial at 9 or 9,5% and incoming another raise January 1st.

I will agree the city and the province won't see $$$ benefits (except tourism ?) by building the arena, be it Glendale, Quebec, Seattle or Yellowknife. As other pointed out, A MAJOR difference between Glendale and as far as I know every other arena currently occupied by an NHL team but owned by city is the fact that Glendale pays to have the NHL use the equipment while everywhere else it's the NHL(team) that pays to do.

And I'm pretty sure that even when Coyotes played downtown Phoenix they were paying to use the arena.

So at 9.5% if the average ticket is $60 and they have 18K tickets per game the province will get $102,600 per game on ticket sales alone. That $4.2 million for the regular season. Add onto that merchandise sales, concessions, etc as well as the income tax for the players.

So at 9.5% if the average ticket is $60 and they have 18K tickets per game the province will get $102,600 per game on ticket sales alone. That $4.2 million for the regular season. Add onto that merchandise sales, concessions, etc as well as the income tax for the players.

What is the provincial income tax?

Depends on your income. For most of us, below 50k a year it's 32 or 38%, the new goverment is trying to make those earning more than 125k pay more, those that earn more than 250k even more and so on, the player do end up in those latter categories.

From what I could google fast it's 48,2% for over 400k. But then like elsewhere, players don't earn 100% of their income in the state/province where their team plays home games because IIRC they get only 50% (as 50% of home games) and need to pay income tax on the other 50% to other states/provinces where they play thru the season. I know there was a topic here about this but can't find it (too lazy to look too much).

Also to note, and I don't know if it's like that bylaw but here when you buy a ticket for an event, taxes and fees are included in the price, so that $60 ticket, it's actually $40something + taxes + service fees for a total of $60.

Depends on your income. For most of us, below 50k a year it's 32 or 38%, the new goverment is trying to make those earning more than 125k pay more, those that earn more than 250k even more and so on, the player do end up in those latter categories.

From what I could google fast it's 48,2% for over 400k. But then like elsewhere, players don't earn 100% of their income in the state/province where their team plays home games because IIRC they get only 50% (as 50% of home games) and need to pay income tax on the other 50% to other states/provinces where they play thru the season. I know there was a topic here about this but can't find it (too lazy to look too much).

Also to note, and I don't know if it's like that bylaw but here when you buy a ticket for an event, taxes and fees are included in the price, so that $60 ticket, it's actually $40something + taxes + service fees for a total of $60.

are those just provincial rates? Because you would then have federal on top of that.

But the general point is that the province will get tax receipts from the sales of tickets, merchandise, etc (yes some of it will come at the expense of something else but some will be new spending) and taxes on the team payroll. so its not a bad deal. Before Killion drops the hammer for us getting off topic, part of the problem with the way this was done in Glendale was that all the financing burden was on Glendale.